The EOS 3D is a fantasy camera that is supposed to be the ultimate combination of every bit of camera technology you could ever ask for in a relatively compact and affordable package.

Inspired by the film era EOS 3, which took every bit of tech Canon had at the time (zillion point AF, eye control, weather sealing, robust, high speed shutter, 100% viewfinder, EOS 1 series UI, etc...) and dumped it into a body that was just a little more expensive than the Elan (xx) series of cameras. Then Canon introduced the EOS 1v at over twice the price that offered one incremental benefit (bullet proof construction), but took away eye control and a little speed unless you bought the power booster grip. Note that every EOS 1D series camera since is based on the EOS 1v interface and PB grip-included cosmetics.

I would be willing to bet that the 5D III and/or its linear successor is about as close as we are going to get from Canon these days.

the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.

I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.

Would be interesting to know what laptop was used, which model and make of screen it had and what was used to calibrate it etc.

There are a few ways they can improve the 1D X but I do not think we will see a new one for a quite a while yet.

Maybe it is the 7D II and the body is just to throw everyone, I mean they could hide a 7D Mark II in a 1D X but you could never hide a 1D X in a 7D!

A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about.

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?

The EOS 3D is long-fabled version of the film EOS 3, but it's not longer fabled as it already arrived as the EOS 5D3 a few years ago. Although I guess some just want to keep the mythical nature of it alive hah and others simply don't seem to understand so they still keep on talking about a mythical 3D one day (again, it's lready out and it's the 5D3; I'm particularly not sure why some keep trying to refer to the mythical upcoming ultra high MP camera as the EOS 3D, since what the heck does that have to do with the old EOS 3, it's not like the EOS 3 was medium format or anything).

Looks like we were composing almost identical responses at the same time! I think the "missing" element, aside from the name, was that the original 3 actually was the best of everything Canon had, until the 1v and its indestructible body came out. Maybe they pray for the return of eye control? Or who knows what. In any case, I agree that the 5D III fills that niche pretty well.

The EOS 3D is a fantasy camera that is supposed to be the ultimate combination of every bit of camera technology you could ever ask for in a relatively compact and affordable package.

Inspired by the film era EOS 3, which took every bit of tech Canon had at the time (zillion point AF, eye control, weather sealing, robust, high speed shutter, 100% viewfinder, EOS 1 series UI, etc...) and dumped it into a body that was just a little more expensive than the Elan (xx) series of cameras. Then Canon introduced the EOS 1v at over twice the price that offered one incremental benefit (bullet proof construction), but took away eye control and a little speed unless you bought the power booster grip. Note that every EOS 1D series camera since is based on the EOS 1v interface and PB grip-included cosmetics.

I would be willing to bet that the 5D III and/or its linear successor is about as close as we are going to get from Canon these days.

The 3 didn't have a 100% viewfinder, one of the main reasons I got two 1VHS's which did, oh and the ten frames a second Running through a roll of film in 3.5 seconds is a thing of beauty!

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about.

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?

Yes, the camera calibration tab in LR and ACR, you can make custom profiles very easily and quickly if you do a shot on set with a regular 24 patch colour card. The most popular and convenient one around is the X-Rite Color Checker Passport. I found the free Adobe app, DNG Profile Editor, to be a better piece of software than the inclusive X-Rite app.

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

The EOS 3D is a fantasy camera that is supposed to be the ultimate combination of every bit of camera technology you could ever ask for in a relatively compact and affordable package.

Inspired by the film era EOS 3, which took every bit of tech Canon had at the time (zillion point AF, eye control, weather sealing, robust, high speed shutter, 100% viewfinder, EOS 1 series UI, etc...) and dumped it into a body that was just a little more expensive than the Elan (xx) series of cameras. Then Canon introduced the EOS 1v at over twice the price that offered one incremental benefit (bullet proof construction), but took away eye control and a little speed unless you bought the power booster grip. Note that every EOS 1D series camera since is based on the EOS 1v interface and PB grip-included cosmetics.

I would be willing to bet that the 5D III and/or its linear successor is about as close as we are going to get from Canon these days.

The 3 didn't have a 100% viewfinder, one of the main reasons I got two 1VHS's which did, oh and the ten frames a second Running through a roll of film in 3.5 seconds is a thing of beauty!

OK, I stand corrected on the viewfinder, but being 97% when the EOS 1n (tops at the time of intro) was only listed as "near 100%", and the still respectable EOS 50/Elan IIe was only at 90/92%, the difference was a mere quibble until the EOS 1v family.

the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.

I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.

Would be interesting to know what laptop was used, which model and make of screen it had and what was used to calibrate it etc.

There are a few ways they can improve the 1D X but I do not think we will see a new one for a quite a while yet.

Maybe it is the 7D II and the body is just to throw everyone, I mean they could hide a 7D Mark II in a 1D X but you could never hide a 1D X in a 7D!

Maybe the 7Dii has a built-in grip and has dropped the flash, which means it could superficially at least resemble a new (although likely smaller) 1D.

A lot of even high end pros don't have the faintest idea about colour. I have seen pros, real household names, wax lyrical about this lighting setup or that lighting setup because of a colour cast, yet not having a clue about camera profiling. It is kind of embarrassing the misinformed uneducated rubbish they come out with sometimes, particularly about colour, but hey, they are much better image makers and promoters than me!

Many don't do anything, they leave all that to "the retouchers", some use grey cards but believe WB is all that is needed for good consistent work while some, depressingly few, use colour cards and make profiles. It is funny, they know what light they like, they can tell you what time of day an image was made in their daylight studio from the colour on their calibrated monitor, but they couldn't tell you how to create exactly the same look with studio lights, or visa versa.

As far as lighting goes, junior movie light crew know far more about light than most high end pro photographers.

Sorry, I'm not 100% sure about what color profiling is, I'm not a pro or anything even close but it sounds like something I should know about.

Are you refering to the Camera Calibration tab on LR or ACR? How does that work? Do you create a custom profile for each type of lighting and save it as a preset?

Yes, the camera calibration tab in LR and ACR, you can make custom profiles very easily and quickly if you do a shot on set with a regular 24 patch colour card. The most popular and convenient one around is the X-Rite Color Checker Passport. I found the free Adobe app, DNG Profile Editor, to be a better piece of software than the inclusive X-Rite app.

This rumor makes it sound like "Canon came and visited us with a new camera that we got to look at and try."

If that is the case, Canon will know exactly who it is (or have a very short list.) If they signed an NDA ... and even if they didn't, I suspect that Canon would look unfavourably on this kind of disclosure - UNLESS it was specifically asked about and agreed to.

Additionally, any professional (working in a studio where Canon visits you is going to mean you're seriously good) is going to know that the colour accuracy of a file when viewed on a laptop screen is highly dependent on the ability of the screen to represent colour itself and without being able to use the images on a calibrated screen, the colours seen on some random laptop mean nothing.

I'd be almost prepared to call this rumor a hoax.

Its more the fine color transitions and discrimination they are referring to and fine color detail, that is different than accuracy (which depends a lot on the color profile used to develop and matching white balance and so on and so forth).

And maybe they were told to leak talk about amazing colors regardless of what they could see on the laptop.

In that case it comes back to my point of they were specifically allowed to "leak" certain details. i.e. it's not a leak but rather marketing designed to look like a leak.

If I wanted to read a website that's little more than a mouthpiece for a camera manufacturer, I'd read Sony Alpha Rumors! ;-)

Canon often do this kind of thing so that their products are fully tested by trusted professionals and they get the feed back their development engineers need. If they don't do this 1D4 fiascos are likely to occurr. While this kind of leak plays to our emotions, it is necessary for the developement of better camera models. But it is also kind of cool, becuase we get to hear very loose by telling information about prototypes which are currently in devleopment. We know (via other rumours) that Canon have a sensor patent / design which uses a different arrangement of the traditional bayer RGB array. It's likely that this new sensor is a test bed for that particular patent / technology and it appears to be an improvement over the current tech. Bare in mind that the 5DIII resolves nearly as much detail as the D800. It's only the top end optical resolution of a few of the worlds sharpest lenses which can allow the D800 to out resolve the 5DIII and even then, there isn't much between them. Amusingly, Canon have more lenses in that bracket, than Nikon currently do...Canon's new 24-70IIL is the sharpest zoom lens so far from any brand. When Canon finally releases a camera body with this kind of MP count, there will be a lot of lenses to match the sensor's capabilies, where as Nikon have very few lenses which can match their current sensor tech. Most of their lenses do not optically resolve much over 22mp. I think this new camera's sensor point to a more efficient use of the RGB array and probably the removal of the AA filter to create sharper and clearer details with the same resolution of 22mp. If this is the case, the new camera could easily match the D800's sharpness and detail but at a more effficient 22mp. the improvement in colour rendition sound good and i only hope that Canon have employed a simular supporting sensor design to achieve the same (if not better) shadow noise pushability in their raw files. This isn't an expanded DR as some have claimed, it's purely a better control of iso noise in the shadow areas of a raw file. Where as Canon files tend to break up and display banding with the same level of pushing in the shadows. one could argue that the scene was incorrectly exposed in the first place...but the fact remains, Nikon / Sony currently have a 1.5 stop advantage in this single feature on their sensors. All the other features are a lot closer than the marketing / spin doctors would let you belive.